Recent trends in academic journal growth

Gu, Xin; Blackmore, Karen

doi:10.1007/s11192-016-1985-3

Cited by 61 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, we consider the projection of every annual list on the 2015 list, that is, for each year the labels #journals and mean(IF) in Table refer to the number of journals and the mean impact factor of the set of journals that appear both in 2015 and in the corresponding year. In consonance with the study in Gu and Blackmore (), we can also observe how the number of journals and the average IF significantly increased throughout the years. Furthermore, some journals could be tied because they have the same IF, in which case these journals are grouped together in a bucket, so producing partial rankings or rankings with ties (see Rankings, below).…”

Section: Data Preparationsupporting

confidence: 91%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Consensus‐based journal rankings: A complementary tool for bibliometric evaluation

Aledo

Gámez

Melodelima

et al. 2018

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Annual journal rankings are usually considered a tool for the evaluation of research and researchers. Although they are an objective resource for such evaluation, they also present drawbacks: (a) the uncertainty about the definite position of a target journal in the corresponding annual ranking when selecting a journal, and (b) in spite of the nonsignificant difference in score (for instance, impact factor) between consecutive journals in the ranking, the journals are strictly ranked and eventually placed in different terciles/quartiles, which may have a significant influence in the subsequent evaluation. In this article we present several proposals to obtain an aggregated consensus ranking as an alternative/complementary tool to standardize annual rankings. To illustrate the proposed methodology we use as a case study the Journal Citation Reports, and in particular the category of Computer Science: Artificial Intelligence (CS:AI). In the context of the consensus rankings obtained by the different methods, we discuss the convenience of using one or the other procedure according to the corresponding framework. In particular, our proposals allow us to obtain consensus rankings that avoid crisp frontiers between similarly ranked journals and consider the longitudinal/temporal evolution of the journals.

show abstract

Section: Data Preparationsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…The number of academic journals has consistently grown at an average rate per year greater than 3.3% in the last century. This rate has been even higher, 4.7%, between 1986 and 2013, according to the study in Gu and Blackmore (). Several factors are correlated with this increase, the growing number of scholars being one of them (Mabe, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Consensus‐based journal rankings: A complementary tool for bibliometric evaluation

Aledo

Gámez

Melodelima

et al. 2018

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Web of Science (WoS), Scopus (Scopus), and Google Scholar (GS) are recognized as primary bibliographic data sources (Alonso et al, ; Alonso, Cabrerizo, Herrera‐Viedma, & Herrera, 2009; Meho & Yang, ). SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) provided by Scopus has wider coverage than the Journal Citation Report provided by WoS (Gu & Blackmore, ). With regard to GS, this data set is broadly considered to be inflated with nonacademic publications (Larsen & von Ins, ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing a scholar classification scheme from publication patterns in academic science: A cluster analysis approach

Blackmore

2019

Asso for Info Science & Tech

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The impact of university rankings has driven scholars to increase productivity, and expanding collaboration has dramatically changed the publishing patterns in the academic publication system. The aim of this study was to develop a scholar classification scheme from publication patterns in academic science. Classification schemes are ways of describing groups that display different clusters of behaviors, approaches, or perspectives, and useful in the development of typologies. In this research, sample data are selected from three representative universities, considered a leading university, a middle-tier university, and a noncomprehensive university. A final set of 11,427 effective scholars and their 284,128 journal publication records were used to develop the classification scheme via cluster analysis. The results identify six types of scholars, labeled as: singleton (8%), small-team low performer (16%), smallteam high performer (17%), big-team strategist (22%), free-style follower (21%), and life-time warrior (17%). These six scholar types demonstrate different approaches to publishing that can be used to understand both individual and research team performance across different institutional settings. Additionally, possible future work was identified that uses the scholar classification scheme to define the behavior for agents in an agent-based model to simulate the strategicbehavior-driven academic publication system.

show abstract

“…In 2002, approximately 22% of the 775 Newly Created journals, which is a term from Ulrich's Periodical Directory, were open access journals; in 2011, 35% of the 1,499 Newly Created journals were open access journals, although there was a falloff in 2012 and 2013 (Gu & Blackmore, 2016). Another study estimated that 19.4% of the approximately 1,346,000 scientific papers published in 2006 were available in open access form (Björk, Roos, & Lauri, 2009).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hype or Real Threat: The Extent of Predatory Journals in Student Bibliographies

Schira

Hurst

2019

Partnership

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Predatory publishing has risen with the development of open access publishing. This study examines how many potential predatory journals were used by Brandon University students by analyzing their bibliographies. In total, 245 bibliographies including 2,359 citations were analyzed. Of the 1,485 citations to journals in these citations, five were found to cite journals on Beall's List of Predatory Journals and Publishers. The probable sources of these journals in the students' bibliographies were examined.

show abstract

Recent trends in academic journal growth

Abstract: Since the publication of the first academic journal in 1665, the number of academic journal titles has grown steadily. In 2001, Mabe & Amin studied the pattern of growth in the number of academic journals worldwide, identifying three key development periods between

Cited by 61 publications

References 30 publications

Consensus‐based journal rankings: A complementary tool for bibliometric evaluation

Consensus‐based journal rankings: A complementary tool for bibliometric evaluation

Developing a scholar classification scheme from publication patterns in academic science: A cluster analysis approach

Hype or Real Threat: The Extent of Predatory Journals in Student Bibliographies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About